I was hit with a question the other day on another site. Coral growth as arguement against a young earth. Apparantly there is the Great Barrier Reef and others even thicker, up to 1400 meters thick. I did a little reading on it, and I know that coral growth is not constant. Carbonate ions in the water and temperature can influence coral growth. The tsunami in the Indian Ocean damaged coral reefs, and has suprised scientists, at it's regrowth. It has been much faster than expected.

But we have 4300 years from the flood. I haven't done alot of study on this. Does anyone out there have any info on this?

I was hit with a question the other day on another site.Ã‚Â Coral growth as arguement against a young earth.Ã‚Â Apparantly there is the Great Barrier Reef and others even thicker, up to 1400 meters thick.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â I did a little reading on it, and I know that coral growth is not constant.Ã‚Â Carbonate ions in the water and temperature can influence coral growth.Ã‚Â The tsunami in the Indian Ocean damaged coral reefs, and has suprised scientists, at it's regrowth.Ã‚Â It has been much faster than expected.

But we have 4300 years from the flood.Ã‚Â I haven't done alot of study on this.Ã‚Â Does anyone out there have any info on this?

The thickness of carbonate rock or reefal material produced from coral growth is controlled much more by rises in sea level or subsidence of the area beneath such reefs than by factors such as the ions in the water which is relatively constant in comparison. Corals cannot grow above sea-level and are basically limted to the photic zone below the surface. If sea level remains constant and there is no subsidence the reef cannot grow in the vertical direction, so to invoke 1400 meters of thickness in 4300 years would need very rapid subsidence rates since we know sea-level has not risen to account for such a thickness in that time interval. Are such rates reasonable?

The thickness of carbonate rock or reefal material produced from coral growth is controlled much more by rises in sea level or subsidence of the area beneath such reefs than by factors such as the ions in the water which is relatively constant in comparison. Corals cannot grow above sea-level and are basically limted to the photic zone below the surface. If sea level remains constant and there is no subsidence the reef cannot grow in the vertical direction, so to invoke 1400 meters of thickness in 4300 years would need very rapid subsidence rates since we know sea-level has not risen to account for such a thickness in that time interval. Are such rates reasonable?

I will have to get back to the page where I was reading about it from a more biochemical perspective. I don't have time to search right now. It was saying that the calcium carbonate skeletons require the presence of both calcium and carbonate ions in the water. More CO2 in the water causes the water to be more acidic slowing the growth near the surface. The page was a plug for global warming, obviously implying coral reefs suffer from GW.

Another page I read said most corals will not grow 50 meters under the water, because of lack of irradiance. So we have a 50 meter zone, according to today's ecology.

I only had a little time to read the creationist view. I don't recall everything. But they do have some points, and seem unrattled by this coral growth.

One thing I did read was about the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. The coral reefs have made a much faster than predicted comeback, after the catastrophe.

As far as the 1400 meters, I don't think all of the coral polyps would be alive that deep, as the growth zone is 50 meters today.

For the sake of arguement, assuming there was a deluge, we don't know what the pre deluge ecology was like. If alot of this coral was pre flood, then today's considerations are irrelavant.

Of course, in natural thinking, the flood would have killed the coral, because the water would have been too deep for over a year. But if one believes that God "catalyzed" the flood, then one believes he also restored things afterward.

But, right now, I don't have alot of time. I will continue to study this. Thank you.

One other thing Geode. The 1400 meter figure is from drillings and that is only in certain areas of the coral, it is not a mean. My question would be is the coral growing on top of chalk or limestone? Are they finding calcium carbonate period, or is there evidence of polyps that far down?

If it is chalk deposits under the coral, flood geologists have models for those deposits.

I was hit with a question the other day on another site. Coral growth as arguement against a young earth. Apparantly there is the Great Barrier Reef and others even thicker, up to 1400 meters thick. I did a little reading on it, and I know that coral growth is not constant. Carbonate ions in the water and temperature can influence coral growth. The tsunami in the Indian Ocean damaged coral reefs, and has suprised scientists, at it's regrowth. It has been much faster than expected.

But we have 4300 years from the flood. I haven't done alot of study on this. Does anyone out there have any info on this?

I think the surprise is that the coral is regrowing at all. Between all the silt churned up and the incredibly polluted Indian Ocean, regrowth was expected to happen very slowly, if at all. The regrowth has not been beyond what is considered biologically possible for the corals, at least from what I've read.

For what it's worth, I probably wouldn't use coral as an argument for the Earth's age at all. 150-200 feet is the deepest reefs can form. Given sea levels during the last glaciation nobody really expects to find large reefs that are over 20,000 years old. For the most part, reefs formed before then would be too far underwater for the algae it "eats" to survive.

As for your chalk question, are you asking if chalk is being found and possibly being confused as old reef???

I think the surprise is that the coral is regrowing at all. Between all the silt churned up and the incredibly polluted Indian Ocean, regrowth was expected to happen very slowly, if at all. The regrowth has not been beyond what is considered biologically possible for the corals, at least from what I've read.

For what it's worth, I probably wouldn't use coral as an argument for the Earth's age at all. 150-200 feet is the deepest reefs can form. Given sea levels during the last glaciation nobody really expects to find large reefs that are over 20,000 years old. For the most part, reefs formed before then would be too far underwater for the algae it "eats" to survive.

As for your chalk question, are you asking if chalk is being found and possibly being confused as old reef???

Actually Rock, I was reading on it last night. There are deep water (cold water) coral that can grow as deep as 2000m in complete darkness. They don't rely on the symbioltic relationship with algae, but rely on planktonic organisms, for the resources of growth.

Actually, the original question was not to support an old earth, but to discredit a young earth.

I will have to get back to the page where I was reading about it from a more biochemical perspective. I don't have time to search right now. It was saying that the calcium carbonate skeletons require the presence of both calcium and carbonate ions in the water. More CO2 in the water causes the water to be more acidic slowing the growth near the surface. The page was a plug for global warming, obviously implying coral reefs suffer from GW.

Another page I read said most corals will not grow 50 meters under the water, because of lack of irradiance. So we have a 50 meter zone, according to today's ecology.

I only had a little time to read the creationist view. I don't recall everything. But they do have some points, and seem unrattled by this coral growth.

One thing I did read was about the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. The coral reefs have made a much faster than predicted comeback, after the catastrophe.

As far as the 1400 meters, I don't think all of the coral polyps would be alive that deep, as the growth zone is 50 meters today.

For the sake of arguement, assuming there was a deluge, we don't know what the pre deluge ecology was like. If alot of this coral was pre flood, then today's considerations are irrelavant.

Of course, in natural thinking, the flood would have killed the coral, because the water would have been too deep for over a year. But if one believes that God "catalyzed" the flood, then one believes he also restored things afterward.

But, right now, I don't have alot of time. I will continue to study this. Thank you.

As I already posted, coral reefs only grow basically in the photic zone. That is where the polyps are living. But the reefal material that is produced by them can accumulate to great thickness if accomodation space becomes available below. One such situation wehre this occurs is the sinking of atolls as originally postulated by Charles Darwin. His concept is still held to be a correct explanation to this day.

An event such as "The Flood" would most certainly have killed coral reefs worldwide.

One other thing Geode. The 1400 meter figure is from drillings and that is only in certain areas of the coral, it is not a mean. My question would be is the coral growing on top of chalk or limestone? Are they finding calcium carbonate period, or is there evidence of polyps that far down?

If it is chalk deposits under the coral, flood geologists have models for those deposits.

I don't know the substrate under the maximum accumulations of The Great Barrier Reefbut it does not need to be limestone or chalk. I would doubt that it is chalk.

Geologists most typically term carbonate buildups as "reefs" when the skeletal material of corals is involved. Carbonate rocks do not always form in reefs. The material at depth in the thick "reefs" would have skeletal evidence of corals.

As for your chalk question, are you asking if chalk is being found and possibly being confused as old reef???

Mud limestones that scientists have found a few sponge fossils in. The sponges are almost always found in unnatural growth positions even upside down, which indicate a catastrophic deposition. The main reef building corals are Scleractinia, which according to ToE, they didn't evolve until the triassic. So, it doesn't make it likely that the largest ancient reef could be in the permian.

Actually Rock, I was reading on it last night. There are deep water (cold water) coral that can grow as deep as 2000m in complete darkness. They don't rely on the symbioltic relationship with algae, but rely on planktonic organisms, for the resources of growth.

Actually, the original question was not to support an old earth, but to discredit a young earth.

I know, that's why I avoided making any absolute claims in my post. Deep water coral doesn't make the huge reefs though. There are far fewer nutrients at those depths so the coral doesn't grow as fast.

Jason reefs are not only formed by coral. They don't always have biological origins at all.

I know, that's why I avoided making any absolute claims in my post.Ã‚Â Deep water coral doesn't make the huge reefs though.Ã‚Â There are far fewer nutrients at those depths so the coral doesn't grow as fast.

Jason reefs are not only formed by coral.Ã‚Â They don't always have biological origins at all.

Do you have a link for that? I have read, if I recall, there is a school of thought that at least some of the micritic material in limestone was precipitated by the ocean itself and not biological.

Wiki says micrite is from recrystallization. This is an assumption, because of a polymorph issue between calcite and aragonite. Modern carbonate deposits are aragonite lattice of calcium carbonate, but limestones are mostly calcite. Since biological CaCO3 is mostly aragonite, it is assumed that that the limestones have recrystallized.

According to Wiki, arogonite is an unstable lattice and turns to calcite after 10 to 100 million years. This is because they rule out original calcite at creation--that it was part of the original ocean sediments, and dispersed throughout the fossil bearing sedimentary record during the deluge.

At any rate, I found a cool experiment online which demonstrates chemical precipitation of "limestone."

Other evidence of limestone bedrock exists in the formation of marl and a white chalky residue found where springs discharge groundwater, to the surface in streams. Marl can indicate the presence of cooler groundwater with CaCO3 in it mixing with the warmer surface water. The CaCO3 precipitates out of solution and deposits on the bottom of the stream. Marl is white, gray, or buff (depending on the minerals present).

1.Divide students into teams. 2.Each team must collect 1 Mason jar, 1 cup of warm water, 1 teaspoon of alum, and 2 teaspoons of ammonia. 3.Pour the 1 cup of warm water into the Mason jar. 4.Stir in the 1 teaspoon of alum until it completely dissolves. 5.Add the 2 teaspoons of ammonia and observe what happens. 6.Make sure that students understand that the white residue at the bottom of the jar is a precipitate. It comes out of solution just like marl does as groundwater comes to the surface at a spring.

I was hit with a question the other day on another site. Coral growth as arguement against a young earth. Apparantly there is the Great Barrier Reef and others even thicker, up to 1400 meters thick. I did a little reading on it, and I know that coral growth is not constant. Carbonate ions in the water and temperature can influence coral growth. The tsunami in the Indian Ocean damaged coral reefs, and has suprised scientists, at it's regrowth. It has been much faster than expected.

But we have 4300 years from the flood. I haven't done alot of study on this. Does anyone out there have any info on this?

Corals cannot grow above sea-level and are basically limted to the photic zone below the surface.

Actually, many acropora corals survive out of the water during low tide. They produce a slime coating that shields them from UV radiation until the water level rises.

Yes, Jason, there are lots of possibilities for deep coral growth, besides just a sinking volcano. There are many different genera of coral polyps, and they may indeed be an example of micro-evolution aka genetic adaptation.

What do you think of coral rings? This was another arguement brought up. That you can count the coral rings for age. But I don't know if those rings are necessarily seasonal. Besides, why would they be coming up with other dating methods for coral, if that was an absolute indicator?

Yes, Jason, there are lots of possibilities for deep coral growth, besides just a sinking volcano. There are many different genera of coral polyps, and they may indeed be an example of micro-evolution aka genetic adaptation.

There are ~5,000 species of acropora . I've seen a wide variation of different color morphs across species, but that's as far as it goes. Ask the evolutionists this question: What purpose do the beautiful coloration of corals serve except to be beautiful to look at?

What do you think of coral rings?Ã‚Â This was another arguement brought up.Ã‚Â That you can count the coral rings for age.Ã‚Â But I don't know if those rings are necessarily seasonal.Ã‚Â Besides, why would they be coming up with other dating methods for coral, if that was an absolute indicator?

I've never heard of annual coral growth rings. If they do produce rings it would be determined by the growth rate not the age. As I said in a previous post, I've seen 1 inch frags grow 1 inch in 1 year and I've seen the same species grow 12 inches in 1 year.

Corals cannot grow above sea-level and are basically limted to the photic zone below the surface.

Actually, many acropora corals survive out of the water during low tide. They produce a slime coating that shields them from UV radiation until the water level rises.

Survival for a few hours a few inches about the water line during low tide will not impact the point I was making, that reefs are limted in the vertical direction by sea level. I don't think it has yet been addressed that a great accumulation of reef material is impossible in the vertical direction without the accomodation space provided by subsidence.

In the discussions of science I have encountered the use of the term "sea level" unless otherwise noted is taken to mean "mean sea level" and not "low tide."

I've never heard of annual coral growth rings. If they do produce rings it would be determined by the growth rate not the age. As I said in a previous post, I've seen 1 inch frags grow 1 inch in 1 year and I've seen the same species grow 12 inches in 1 year.Thanks.

Is there anything different in the environment that's different between the two? 12 inches is one year. You would never know that from listening to biologists. Coral grows SLOOOOOW , that's why it supposedly takes hundreds of thousands of years for limsestone to form. Of course, I'm not sure what the "official" theory is now for limestone. They change it so much, but teach each new theory as "the best explanation."

Is there anything different in the environment that's different between the two? 12 inches is one year. You would never know that from listening to biologists. Coral grows SLOOOOOW biggrin.gif, that's why it supposedly takes hundreds of thousands of years for limsestone to form. Of course, I'm not sure what the "official" theory is now for limestone. They change it so much, but teach each new theory as "the best explanation."

Competition is fierce on a mature reef. It's like a forrest; little trees can't grow fast because of big trees shading them from getting sunlight and the big corals are under stress from the stinging mesenterial filaments from next door neighbors. When a huge storm surge wipes out the reef, the surviving colonies have plenty of space and sunlight, which increases the growth rates exponetially.